loop_read

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states 'Read', implying a non-destructive operation, and adds 'no playback' to clarify scope. However, it does not mention output format, permissions, or potential edge cases, leaving some transparency gaps for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero redundant words. Every word adds value, earning a top score for structure and brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the core function but does not describe the shape of the returned data or any additional behavior beyond 'no playback'. This is adequate for a simple read, but it leaves the user guessing about the output, making it neither complete nor severely lacking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path', describing it as '.sli path, or wave path (uses FileName.sli)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Kirikiri WaveLoopManager .sli links/labels'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like loop_write and other kirikiri readers. The parenthetical 'no playback' prevents confusion with audio playback tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when one needs to inspect .sli loop labels, and 'no playback' provides a negative constraint. However, it stops short of explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternatives like loop_write or other kirikiri analysis tools, leaving the guidance implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.